The opposite, however, is very true: A price of a professional tool should not be lowered just because some hobbyist wants to be a wannabe.

A $4 million F1 race car is not unfairly priced just because some hotshot dearly wishes to take it for a spin on the county track every few weeks. A $300 Blendtec should not be lowered to the price of a Target blender just because you want to put an iPhone in it for kicks; a commercial blender is built to survive where a home blender wouldn't. If a hobbyist wants an affordable editor there is Pixelmator, Photoshop Elements, the GIMP, etc.; there is no need to complain about Photoshop.

There are many other reasons that would be justifiable as to why Photoshop's price should be lowered, but kowtowing to wannabes is not one of them.

I think perhaps the issue is you have a very narrow view on a very broad field. I won't even bother to list off the countless jobs GIMP would be (and is in some companies) perfect for, that Photoshop isn't ever needed. However, saying that those individuals who utilize GIMP to perform their job and get paid well for it are hobbyists and not pros, is a huge insult.

However, I'm sure with a name like egojab, insulting others by belittling their contributions to the Art and Design industry was most certainly accidental.

Just because a skilled professional can utilize a hobbyist tool like GIMP to do their job doesn't change what GIMP is. I can tow a car with a farm tractor, but that doesn't make it a tow truck.

Any professional who is insulted by me calling GIMP a hobbyist tool is a self obsessed moron. And anyone who takes my criticisms of GIMP as somehow a criticism of their work or contribution to the Art/Design industry is equally moronic. They were criticisms of the tool when compared against PS, nothing more, don't read too much into things and let it get under your skin. You'll end up with an ulcer.

At this price, even after 4 years of use, you'll be just under the full price for Master Collection, and always be up to date. Certainly for independent/freelance workers, the cost of creative cloud is a no-brainer.

It's a good deal for folks who intended to always run the newest latest and greatest of whatever suite. For someone like me, who works at an agency and only uses the Suite when I work on freelance projects or am in-between jobs or making something for myself, upgrading my license is fine. I've gotten by great with CS3 for over five years. In fact, I'm upgrading primarily because if I don't upgrade to CS6, then I won't be able to upgrade to CS7 or whatever version knocks my socks off.

This model stresses me out a little. I've been in business long enough to go through several boom/bust cycles, and seen cash flow go from great to terrible and back. The worst-case scenario I can imagine is missing an Adobe bill because some client is late in paying a big invoice, and finding myself suddenly unable to do my work or earn any money, potentially liable for missing a delivery deadline, etc. I've been an early adopter of cloud services for apps and storage for years, but I've been burned repeatedly due to problems beyond my control like network outages, services being discontinued, etc., so I'm leery of putting all my eggs in a remote basket. If Adobe was offering "rent-to-own" I'd sign up in the next five minutes without batting an eye, but I'm too much of a pessimist to lease my livelihood.

At this price, even after 4 years of use, you'll be just under the full price for Master Collection, and always be up to date. Certainly for independent/freelance workers, the cost of creative cloud is a no-brainer.

It's a good deal for folks who intended to always run the newest latest and greatest of whatever suite. For someone like me, who works at an agency and only uses the Suite when I work on freelance projects or am in-between jobs or making something for myself, upgrading my license is fine. I've gotten by great with CS3 for over five years. In fact, I'm upgrading primarily because if I don't upgrade to CS6, then I won't be able to upgrade to CS7 or whatever version knocks my socks off.

I don't use 100% of the whole Master Collection, but I use enough of it that no other package fulfills my needs. I do web/print/interactive design, mobile app development, digital publishing, as well as motion graphics and video editing. Certainly the majority of people are more focused than that, but since that's what the subscription offers, it was the proper comparison to make. I also think there a lot more independent designers/creatives who use a multitude of the Adobe tools than those who work at agencies. There aren't going to be many that use all the apps in the master collection, just enough people who use enough of the apps in various combinations to validate having it as a package, as opposed to having 20+ combinations of potential packages. Put it this way, if you're a web designer who dabbles in video/motion graphics, than the MC is cheaper than buying the web premium bundle + Premiere Pro & AE

I would give you one counter argument to that - I would say you don't see GIMP in professional settings very often - simply because it's not taught in college. If it were, you'd see quite a lot more of it.

You have to remember, what you teach the future design artists on now, is what they're going to use later.

GIMP will never get used in any sort of notable numbers beyond very simple web graphic tasks because it's just not up to the job. i.e. Again, if you want to do anything in GIMP that will ever be printed and want any sort of certainty that you will maintain anything close to color accuracy, it's already not the tool for the job due to it's lack of even moderate CMYK support without a third party add-in.

No to mention that moving from Photoshop to Illustrator to Fireworks to Indesign is *trivial* with Adobe, and a workflow involving two or more of those is very common.

There is a very narrow domain within which GIMP beats out competing products. Everything else is better handled by commercial programs that do what GIMP tries to do, except in vastly superior ways. Hell, I bet you paying for Photoshop Elements would allow you much better creation and editing abilities than GIMP.

HelmholtzW wrote:

This model stresses me out a little. I've been in business long enough to go through several boom/bust cycles, and seen cash flow go from great to terrible and back. The worst-case scenario I can imagine is missing an Adobe bill because some client is late in paying a big invoice, and finding myself suddenly unable to do my work or earn any money, potentially liable for missing a delivery deadline, etc. I've been an early adopter of cloud services for apps and storage for years, but I've been burned repeatedly due to problems beyond my control like network outages, services being discontinued, etc., so I'm leery of putting all my eggs in a remote basket. If Adobe was offering "rent-to-own" I'd sign up in the next five minutes without batting an eye, but I'm too much of a pessimist to lease my livelihood.

I would suggest that if your business revenue flow is so bad that you can't float $75 to manage a late invoice, our business plan has many more issues than Adobe's subscription paradigm.

On the flip side, owning recent Adobe software probably doesn't make any sense anyway, for you really don't actually 'own' it in any practical sense. It is tied to licenses that they can just refuse to acknowledge at their whim leaving you with essentially an unusable, albeit owned, software.

I can see the same happening in their subscription model.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I can buy the software and install it and use it as long as I want to on any compatible computer, unless my OS no longer supports it's functionality. Adobe could choose to not support the license by refusing me technical support, but that's it.

However, with a subscription you're completely at the whims of the company. Your "license" is only effective if Adobe chooses to allow it to be.

On the flip side, owning recent Adobe software probably doesn't make any sense anyway, for you really don't actually 'own' it in any practical sense. It is tied to licenses that they can just refuse to acknowledge at their whim leaving you with essentially an unusable, albeit owned, software.

I can see the same happening in their subscription model.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I can buy the software and install it and use it as long as I want to on any compatible computer, unless my OS no longer supports it's functionality. Adobe could choose to not support the license by refusing me technical support, but that's it.

However, with a subscription you're completely at the whims of the company. Your "license" is only effective if Adobe chooses to allow it to be.

I think I basically said the same thing. Subscription; you are totally at their mercy. With baught software you would have a degree of assurance that once baught, it would work. However, in Adobe's case, that is not so, even with their 'baught' software (let alone talk of subscription software). Even their 'baught' software requires a license that they can chose to refuse to allow. That is what I had said.

On the flip side, owning recent Adobe software probably doesn't make any sense anyway, for you really don't actually 'own' it in any practical sense. It is tied to licenses that they can just refuse to acknowledge at their whim leaving you with essentially an unusable, albeit owned, software.

I can see the same happening in their subscription model.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I can buy the software and install it and use it as long as I want to on any compatible computer, unless my OS no longer supports it's functionality. Adobe could choose to not support the license by refusing me technical support, but that's it.

However, with a subscription you're completely at the whims of the company. Your "license" is only effective if Adobe chooses to allow it to be.

I think I basically said the same thing. Subscription; you are totally at their mercy. With baught software you would have a degree of assurance that once baught, it would work. However, in Adobe's case, that is not so, even with their 'baught' software (let alone talk of subscription software). Even their 'baught' software requires a license that they can chose to refuse to allow. That is what I had said.

*bought

Also, software, in general, is licensed, not bought. Your OS, your games, your scrapbooking software, all licensed. Sure, you can continue to use it after the maker stops supporting it, but it will quickly lose it's value and usability as your OS updates and makes your obsolete software useless. Adobe has a tremendously good track record for supporting their software, and even a very relaxed view on piracy. They will have to uphold their end of the subscription agreement as well, if you're paying, they'll provide you the service. Current license server outages don't render your Adobe software unusable, it won't under the subscription plan either. Adobe is too big and too smart to go down a path that would leave them open to such deep problems. They are also still offering the "purchase" versions, so it's not like they're saying "subscribe or be left out in the cold". If you choose the subscription option, when the alternative still exists, and then stop paying your subscription, you can't start bitching that your software no longer works. Adobe's path here is one that will make their software more accessible, and it seems it's just getting hated on by the typical "Adobe is overpriced garbage" nonsense, uninformed internet trolls.

On the flip side, owning recent Adobe software probably doesn't make any sense anyway, for you really don't actually 'own' it in any practical sense. It is tied to licenses that they can just refuse to acknowledge at their whim leaving you with essentially an unusable, albeit owned, software.

I can see the same happening in their subscription model.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I can buy the software and install it and use it as long as I want to on any compatible computer, unless my OS no longer supports it's functionality. Adobe could choose to not support the license by refusing me technical support, but that's it.

However, with a subscription you're completely at the whims of the company. Your "license" is only effective if Adobe chooses to allow it to be.

I think I basically said the same thing. Subscription; you are totally at their mercy. With baught software you would have a degree of assurance that once baught, it would work. However, in Adobe's case, that is not so, even with their 'baught' software (let alone talk of subscription software). Even their 'baught' software requires a license that they can chose to refuse to allow. That is what I had said.

*bought

Also, software, in general, is licensed, not bought. Your OS, your games, your scrapbooking software, all licensed. Sure, you can continue to use it after the maker stops supporting it, but it will quickly lose it's value and usability as your OS updates and makes your obsolete software useless. Adobe has a tremendously good track record for supporting their software, and even a very relaxed view on piracy. They will have to uphold their end of the subscription agreement as well, if you're paying, they'll provide you the service. Current license server outages don't render your Adobe software unusable, it won't under the subscription plan either. Adobe is too big and too smart to go down a path that would leave them open to such deep problems. They are also still offering the "purchase" versions, so it's not like they're saying "subscribe or be left out in the cold". If you choose the subscription option, when the alternative still exists, and then stop paying your subscription, you can't start bitching that your software no longer works. Adobe's path here is one that will make their software more accessible, and it seems it's just getting hated on by the typical "Adobe is overpriced garbage" nonsense, uninformed internet trolls.

Precisely. I *primarily* use Photoshop, but I very occasionally use other programs. I'd much rather pay $20/mo just for Photoshop and then punt on the other ones (use it at work or something). It's more affordable for me than getting even the smallest suite edition, and it results in Adobe actually getting more revenue. Win-win.

It would be good if you'd remember this is international - it looks like Adobe have done their normal +20% on the price with far less support for Australia, for example. Adobe's price gouging and un-justifiable international pricing model is probably the single biggest driver towards their products being pirated. Considering the number of show-stopping bugs in their licensing software of the past 3 releases (e.g, on our Mac Pros CS5 Master wouldn't install with more than one HD mounted) I'll be interested to see if they can even do web licence tracking properly...

I would suggest that if your business revenue flow is so bad that you can't float $75 to manage a late invoice, our business plan has many more issues than Adobe's subscription paradigm.

It hasn't gotten *that bad,* but I'm a paranoid person by nature, and paranoia has gotten my production company this far. In 12 years I've seen a lot of much bigger competitors go down, almost always due to some temporary cashflow issue. When you're doing a handful of big jobs in a year you have a lot of negative cashflow periods. We were left out to dry on a huge invoice a few years back when Viacom stopped paying all their vendors for about 10 moths as part of a cash hoarding scheme, and things got pretty crazy. When you're riding the thin line between big receivables and big payables, you've got to be ready for anything. All my applications getting shut off isn't one of them.

Here's a scenario: your credit card is shut off because of suspicious/unauthorized activity, and Adobe subscription is suspended in the time it takes to sort it out. Major client needs something right away, and you have to tell them they're screwed because your After Effects license is suspended. You're done, all your relationships are burned, and you'll never hear from them again unless you face litigation for failing to honor a contract.

Or: All lines of credit are maxed to pay union laborers, equipment rentals and other hard costs for The Big Shoot to service The Big New Client, who's agreed to give you a 150k deposit. Big Executive in charge of signing off on said invoice goes to Hamptons for August, in which time your Adobe subscription lapses, and you're fucked along the lines of above scenario.

Or: Something goes wrong that you haven't thought of or prepared for. That's usually what gets people.

You're right that any business plan that includes running a production company probably needs rethinking, but I'm able to sleep better knowing I have my doomsday-prepped laptop with an offsite backup and all the software I need to earn a paycheck if everything goes completely pear shaped. I have a long list of monthly expenditures to stay ahead of, and I don't need Adobe deciding I need to add another one: the $75/mo "you're allowed to earn money" bill.

It hasn't gotten *that bad,* but I'm a paranoid person by nature, and paranoia has gotten my production company this far. In 12 years I've seen a lot of much bigger competitors go down, almost always due to some temporary cashflow issue. When you're doing a handful of big jobs in a year you have a lot of negative cashflow periods. We were left out to dry on a huge invoice a few years back when Viacom stopped paying all their vendors for about 10 moths as part of a cash hoarding scheme, and things got pretty crazy. When you're riding the thin line between big receivables and big payables, you've got to be ready for anything. All my applications getting shut off isn't one of them.

Here's a scenario: your credit card is shut off because of suspicious/unauthorized activity, and Adobe subscription is suspended in the time it takes to sort it out. Major client needs something right away, and you have to tell them they're screwed because your After Effects license is suspended. You're done, all your relationships are burned, and you'll never hear from them again unless you face litigation for failing to honor a contract.

Or: All lines of credit are maxed to pay union laborers, equipment rentals and other hard costs for The Big Shoot to service The Big New Client, who's agreed to give you a 150k deposit. Big Executive in charge of signing off on said invoice goes to Hamptons for August, in which time your Adobe subscription lapses, and you're fucked along the lines of above scenario.

Or: Something goes wrong that you haven't thought of or prepared for. That's usually what gets people.

You're right that any business plan that includes running a production company probably needs rethinking, but I'm able to sleep better knowing I have my doomsday-prepped laptop with an offsite backup and all the software I need to earn a paycheck if everything goes completely pear shaped. I have a long list of monthly expenditures to stay ahead of, and I don't need Adobe deciding I need to add another one: the $75/mo "you're allowed to earn money" bill.

While your scenarios may be real experiences, and make some sort of sense, if you don't have the capability to properly budget for a subscription based license, then, obviously, don't buy it, and stick with the shrinkwrap option (they're not eliminating that option). It's not Adobe's problem, or a mark against the service, that you are unable to properly budget your software purchases to account for such a situation. It's akin to not being able to budget for hosting charges if you run a web based ecommerce or app business, if you can't guarantee your subscription stays up to date, then don't go into that type of business. It's not rocket science. Your hypothetical situations are problems with your business plan, not with Adobe's offerings.

While your scenarios may be real experiences, and make some sort of sense, if you don't have the capability to properly budget for a subscription based license, then, obviously, don't buy it, and stick with the shrinkwrap option (they're not eliminating that option). It's not Adobe's problem, or a mark against the service, that you are unable to properly budget your software purchases to account for such a situation. It's akin to not being able to budget for hosting charges if you run a web based ecommerce or app business, if you can't guarantee your subscription stays up to date, then don't go into that type of business. It's not rocket science. Your hypothetical situations are problems with your business plan, not with Adobe's offerings.

It is Adobe's problem insofar as that many of their customers are in similar businesses. Maybe it will be a huge success for them, maybe it won't. My fear is that they will eliminate the shrinkwrap version eventually--we'll see. Apple decided it made more sense to fuck everyone who made a living using FCP than not, so "trust the giant corporation" isn't a good business plan, IMO. My point is that people may or may not have reasons to sign on to the new plan. I don't run a Web based ecommerce business, so the comparison is irrelevant. If I ran a zoo I would need to buy animal food. Also irrelevant. My point is that I'm not comfortable not having local control of the lynchpin of my business, that's all. Just as it is fair for Adobe to make any offering, it is fair for any business person to accept or refuse that offering for any reason. That is how commerce works.

It is Adobe's problem insofar as that many of their customers are in similar businesses. Maybe it will be a huge success for them, maybe it won't. My fear is that they will eliminate the shrinkwrap version eventually--we'll see. Apple decided it made more sense to fuck everyone who made a living using FCP than not, so "trust the giant corporation" isn't a good business plan, IMO. My point is that people may or may not have reasons to sign on to the new plan. I don't run a Web based ecommerce business, so the comparison is irrelevant. If I ran a zoo I would need to buy animal food. Also irrelevant. My point is that I'm not comfortable not having local control of the lynchpin of my business, that's all. Just as it is fair for Adobe to make any offering, it is fair for any business person to accept or refuse that offering for any reason. That is how commerce works.

But they're not going to lose any of that business. They still offer the purchase versions. Your concerns would only be valid if Adobe were transitioning to a purely subscription model, which they won't do, not anytime soon anyway, if ever, it just doesn't make sense for Adobe to do that. Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Apple's intention was to "fuck everyone who made a living using FCP". They changed their product to fit what they wanted. It didn't work out well for them, but it's quite a "woe is me" victim-like approach to say they did it to "fuck" the people that used it. You are correct that it's fair to refuse the offering, but you were refusing and trying to make Adobe out to be some big bad monster for even offering it, which is not even close to accurate. Adobe has not affected your business at all by offering an alternative licensing model, you're getting angry at far off, and unlikely, hypotheticals; and trying to blame Adobe for your hypothetical bad business planning.

But they're not going to lose any of that business. They still offer the purchase versions. Your concerns would only be valid if Adobe were transitioning to a purely subscription model, which they won't do, not anytime soon anyway, if ever, it just doesn't make sense for Adobe to do that. Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Apple's intention was to "fuck everyone who made a living using FCP". They changed their product to fit what they wanted. It didn't work out well for them, but it's quite a "woe is me" victim-like approach to say they did it to "fuck" the people that used it. You are correct that it's fair to refuse the offering, but you were refusing and trying to make Adobe out to be some big bad monster for even offering it, which is not even close to accurate. Adobe has not affected your business at all by offering an alternative licensing model, you're getting angry at far off, and unlikely, hypotheticals; and trying to blame Adobe for your hypothetical bad business planning.

But apparently those who would prefer the packaged version only do so because they are incompetent business people who deserve comment-thread insulting from you. I actually think Adobe makes great products that are relatively bug free compared to most products out there. My scenarios are about being screwed by clients more than by Adobe. It happens. I'm not sure what you have personally invested in a random software subscription model (work in sales at Adobe??), but it's weird to attack people who aren't sold on it yet for whatever reason. I brought up the example of Apple only to point out a real world situation where a lot of people were left in a bind by a corporate decision beyond their control. It happens. At least I have a working version of FCP Classic that still runs for the time being, which would not be the case if it was subscription based.

I actually have work to do, so enjoy having the last word if that will make you happy.

But apparently those who would prefer the packaged version only do so because they are incompetent business people who deserve comment-thread insulting from you.

What a tremendously stupid leap of logic. That's not at all what I was saying, quit playing the victim.

Quote:

I actually think Adobe makes great products that are relatively bug free compared to most products out there. My scenarios are about being screwed by clients more than by Adobe. It happens. I'm not sure what you have personally invested in a random software subscription model (work in sales at Adobe??), but it's weird to attack people who aren't sold on it yet for whatever reason. I brought up the example of Apple only to point out a real world situation where a lot of people were left in a bind by a corporate decision beyond their control. It happens. At least I have a working version of FCP Classic that still runs for the time being, which would not be the case if it was subscription based.

I don't work at Adobe, and I have as much invested in supporting their subscription model as you do in attacking it. It's just a conversation and debate on a forum online. Don't take it so personally. It wasn't an attack on you, personally, just pointing out that you're railing against a hypothetical situation that only exists if you let it; getting stuck with unusable software because, for whatever reason, you can't pay the subscription fee, when you could have taken the shrinkwrap version all along.

Quote:

I actually have work to do, so enjoy having the last word if that will make you happy.

Dude, grow up. It's not about having the last word. It's just a conversation and debate where I believe (and I'm not the only one) that you're attacking a situation that only affects you if you CHOOSE to have it affect you. If you are worried about not being able to pay your subscription than *gasp* don't choose the subscription model; but it's not logical to go on Ars forum and make Adobe out to be the bad guy for offering it.

Yeah, because $600 a year is reasonable for their software...where do they come up with these numbers and ideas?

As a designer, I think the pricing is relatively fair. After all, I use this software to earn a living and I've been buying the upgrades for over a decade, anyway. Moreover, it's entirely possible to earn enough profit on a single job to pay for the suite for an entire year.

BinaryFu wrote:

Why would I bother with Photoshop in the first place? Obviously I'm going to need training/refreshing on the latest and greatest version, so why wouldn't I instead, spend my training time on something like GIMP that's free and I can have it forever without spending a dime?

If GIMP can replace Photoshop in your workflow then, arguably, you didn't need Photoshop in the first place. Don't get me wrong, GIMP is a fine tool but it's rarely used in professional settings.

I hope I don't get too lambasted for saying this, but if you can't afford Photoshop chances are you don't really need it. Sorry if my wording comes across a bit terse, but as a front-end web developer Pixelator on Mac greatly exceeds my needs. It's faster too...

Use GIMP on Windows or Pixelmator on Mac (I personally find GIMP's Mac port lacking...) and simply wait until you can afford PS/ whatever software you're wanting. Professional design and photo editing is an expensive gig, like most media-related jobs, and the pay, more often than not, more than compensates for simple tools like PS.

I'm trying to preorder the Creative Cloud, but apparently it's only for US, Canada & Mexico. Us rest-of-the-world people will simply have to do what, then?

I live in the Caribbean, and my country is not even on the Adobe store. How am I supposed to buy this exactly? Can I pat on that store with a non-US issued Credit Card using an American billing address?